Struggle for public records not over yet: Editorial

Sometimes, retreat is the only good tactic. That was the case last week for Gov. Jerry Brown and the leaders of the state Assembly and Senate, who wisely reversed an outrageous plan to gut the California Public Records Act after the public found out about it.

This immediate threat to public accountability has been averted, thanks to the many Californians who heard the call from the state's newspapers -- including this one -- decrying the sneaky attempt to make transparency optional for local government agencies. You spoke up, and the politicians listened.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg admitted as much during a meeting Friday with editorial board members of the Los Angeles and Bay Area news groups.

Assembly Speaker John Perez got the message first, and the Assembly quickly passed a bill to undo the damage. The next day Brown and Steinberg reversed course, too. The affected provisions of the Public Records Act will be restored in the budget package, and Steinberg promises a constitutional amendment to protect the act and put the burden for complying with it on the local governments, without reimbursement from the state.

California's leaders were way out of bounds on this issue, which the public made clear. But they do deserve credit for seeing the error of their ways and reversing course.

But this fight isn't over. A constitutional amendment affecting the act has been proposed, and it needs careful scrutiny to make sure it doesn't undercut public accountability. It's hard enough keeping tabs on many Southern California cities without having compliance with public records laws hurt. Indeed, this is an opportunity for public accountability advocates -- which includes just about anyone who cares whether public funds are spent correctly or not -- to push for an expansion to the state Public Records Act.

Steinberg said legislative leaders didn't mean to undermine the state's open-records act with this legislation -- that the proposed change was aimed at getting the state off the hook for the costs of local compliance, which would lower the budget by 0.02 percent. To do this, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature were willing to cut local officials some slack on transparency. Why now, when the state is actually on better financial ground, was never answered.

The bill they passed still encouraged compliance with the Public Records Act. But, for example, instead of having to respond within 10 days to a request, local agencies could respond -- oh, whenever. Or they could deny the request without having to say why, as they're required to do now.

Steinberg, Brown and others are now proposing to enshrine the Public Records Act with a constitutional amendment, while also making it clear that local governments should pay their own costs of compliance. It could end up as a win for public access, but after last week's near-debacle, Californians should be leery of anything state lawmakers suggest in a rush job this week.